Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Hussar]

Not only no, but HELL NO. The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.

Wow, no thank you kindly sir. Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?

After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.

So, essentially you're saying make sure you have a table full of "yes men" who will kowtow to your every whim and you'll be the best DM in the world. True enough I suppose. At least for that particular table.

/snip

5th - You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone. Stop trying to sell me on it, stop insulting me, stop trying to make your case about flipping and grabbing and states of being and all that, and just hear me....you cannot knock a snake prone using a thrusted fist whilst you game at a table I dm on. period.

And this, right here, is where the problem comes. The DM has decided that you absolutely CANNOT do something. No matter what. No matter how much evidence you provide or how fun it might be at the table, at Ultramark's table, you absolutely cannot do this.

Do people honestly think that being the DM entitles you to this level of power over the game?

 

[JamesonCourage]

NFL Football's coach's challenge rule would like to have a word with you.

Except that's a challenge, not a veto. The ref comes back, and he makes the decision. So... not exactly sure how you thought that proved your point.

Wow, no thank you kindly sir. Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?

Because it's not fun for the GM?

After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.

As has been expressed as of one page ago, a few of the opposition (to your preferred way of dealing with things) prefer to have a game world, and have it shaped by player interaction. As such, there is often no story to protect, no plot to shield. If you have no real investment in any particular outcome, than you really don't need to worry about railroading the party for your own enjoyment.

So, essentially you're saying make sure you have a table full of "yes men" who will kowtow to your every whim and you'll be the best DM in the world. True enough I suppose. At least for that particular table.

This is obviously hyperbole, which isn't at all constructive. It is going to lead to more name calling, accusations, and people speaking for other people. The mods will come in and shut the thread down. Which is really too bad, as I think the last couple pages are much more interesting than any discussion on knocking a snake prone has been.

And this, right here, is where the problem comes. The DM has decided that you absolutely CANNOT do something. No matter what. No matter how much evidence you provide or how fun it might be at the table, at Ultramark's table, you absolutely cannot do this.

Do people honestly think that being the DM entitles you to this level of power over the game?

Utterly and completely. The players, of course, can walk away from draconian or unfair GMs. Start their own game. Find a new GM. They are not forced to play in the GM's game. However, the GM is indeed entitled to the power to say Yes, No, or Somewhat. That is really his only function. There are other things to consider, obviously, but rule-wise, that's his job. And, as far as I can tell, it's literally written in the book that the GM does indeed have this level of power over the game.

Having said level of power does not entitle you to players, nor does it mean it should be abused. I think all of the people at the table -players and GM alike (and I do separate the two roles)- should be in the game for enjoyment, whatever their other reasons may be. Obviously fun should be an important consideration for the group. What is "fun" is, however, much too objective to say "you should play this way" or "you shouldn't play this way" as your post seems to imply. I happen to disagree, but I don't think you should change your gaming style.

I do, after all, end many of my posts the same way. Play what you like

 

[Mort]

Perhaps this is not the best way to go about it, but I simply cannot resist:

PC: ...and this knocks the snake prone
DM: How do you knock a snake prone?!
PC: You've seen people handle large dangerous snakes on TV, right? Well, that's what Thorax the Munificent does here, as the snake lunges for a strike, Thorax catches it off balance, delivers his Sweeping Strike and the snake ends up twisted onto its back, it's ventral scales up in the air.
Good DM response: ok, makes sense, Barbarous Dan, it's your turn.
Bad DM response: I invalidate your reasonable explanation, your imagination, and your very right to exist. Begone from my sight, foul beast. Henceforth, everyone at the table is commanded to shun the player of Thorax and all future generations of his line!

Then:

The problem is that your argument relies upon "reasonable explanations have been put forth" and the question remains whether or not that is so. I've got no problems with snakes being knocked prone under some circumstances (as described upthread), nor do I have a problem with your "Good DM response".

However, I think that your example "Bad DM" simply doesn't exist. BUT if that's the only person you're worried about.........?

and then:

You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone. Stop trying to sell me on it, stop insulting me, stop trying to make your case about flipping and grabbing and states of being and all that, and just hear me....you cannot knock a snake prone using a thrusted fist whilst you game at a table I dm on. period.

This really shows many styles exist - as long as the players and the DM are happy - that's what really counts.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Wow, no thank you kindly sir. Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?

After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.

So, essentially you're saying make sure you have a table full of "yes men" who will kowtow to your every whim and you'll be the best DM in the world. True enough I suppose. At least for that particular table.



And this, right here, is where the problem comes. The DM has decided that you absolutely CANNOT do something. No matter what. No matter how much evidence you provide or how fun it might be at the table, at Ultramark's table, you absolutely cannot do this.

Do people honestly think that being the DM entitles you to this level of power over the game?

Over the game? Over the game?!
Being DM gives me power over the WORLD!!!
Mwu ha ha ha ha ha!
*Ominous roll of thunder*

Wait, what was the question again?

The Auld Grump

 

[Ariosto]

First, I don't agree that the referee retains the power you describe in most Fate Point games. Where is the rule to that effect in OGL Conan, for example? Or in HARP? Or HeroWars/Quest?

I don't agree that those selected late comers necessarily represent most of the field. Since you asked, though:

1) I don't know from OGL Conan.

2) HARP page 53

Fate Points may only be used for certain effects, as listed below.

This is so limited already that it does not correspond to what I was talking about!

3) Hero Wars (1st printing) -- What a mess, with no index! Hero Points are used primarily to "cement benefits" (like experience points) and secondarily to "bump action rolls". Again, these are so rudimentary and conventional that the game system itself proscribes most uses.

Second, it's fairly obvious why you would continue to have a GM in a typical game in which the players enjoy some authority via Fate Chips. The GM has authority over the content of the bulk of the setting, and hence to a significant extent over backstory and situation. Plus the GM has a whole lot of responsibility in relation to action resolution. All this is independent of whether or not the GM has authority also over when and how players can spend their Fate Points.

If your Fate Points are such weenie little things, then of course they don't give the players enough power to run the game alone. The subject under discussion was actual trumping of anything the DM might rule.

Such pitiful points are obviously not up to even the particular and very limited task immediately at hand: over-ruling the DM's ruling concerning snakes' vulnerability to getting "knocked prone".

I'm not sure which side of the debate this comment is meant to support, but I want to reiterate - in 4e, using a power is, in part, spending a Fate Point. It is shifting narrative control from GM to player. That is part of the game rules.

Which part is that, specifically?

Anyhow, the comment is on neither side of the debate. If Thasmodious would be happy having to spend a "Fate Point" to use his Power, then at least he would not be unhappily brow-beating the DM.

Per my next sentence in the post you quoted, though, I do not think that is what he really is after. I think he really wants the DM to agree to Thasmodious's version of rules. After all, he already has a Power. Why should that be insufficient? On the other hand, why should not the DM's ruling apply as well to use of a separate supposed entitlement merely under another name?

This is plainly a matter of disagreement as to how the DM's world should work, and the final authority is unalterably the DM. A player can either get along with the DM or get along to another game.

If punching snakes (or whatever it is that is at issue here) is not working out, then I'll bet a good player can find some other way to get ahead in the world. If the rest of the game is not worthwhile, then why give a flying Figaro about this minor thing? If the rest of the game is worthwhile, then why not concentrate on that?

 

[Mort]

This thread seems to have morphed a bit - one of the current big topics - fiction first or mechanics first (or somewhere in the middle)?
One thing that really needs to be said about fiction first - it's missing an element (at least IMO) - the correct presentation is/or should be fiction of the game world. Because in most circumstances (as magic and myth are certainly involved) the fiction of the game world does not fully correspond to the real world.
While only a slight difference in wording - it's a huge difference in both presentation and adjudication of the rules. For example (I refuse to use the snake example) in 4e gelatinous cubes are not immune to either stunning or backstab damage. But how can this be it's a lump of gelatin, how do you stun that? No idea in our world, but in the fiction of the 4e world (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, homebrew, etc.) these creatures exist and adventurers can be taught how to deal with them (maybe they have easy to access nerve endings). If a fighter knows how to stun a human he could also know how to stun a gelatinous cube etc.
In short, I can certainly see advocating fiction first, I’m not sure I can see it without adding that it be the fiction of the game world.

 

[Tanstaafl_au]

after sitting on the bench for 5 pages, I'm tagging back in
I find it ironic that some folks disagreed with me, but then argue there points in such a way that backs up everything i have said. Let be perfectly clear on several points here.

(snip)

5th - You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone. Stop trying to sell me on it, stop insulting me, stop trying to make your case about flipping and grabbing and states of being and all that, and just hear me....you cannot knock a snake prone using a thrusted fist whilst you game at a table I dm on. period.

Any player badass enough to punch a snake in front of me gets a free pass for something, thats for sure.

I'm suprised you wouldnt take evidence of your own eyes for prrof it could be done though. Stubborn to the point of ignoring reality isn't the trait imo.

 

[the Jester]

Wow, no thank you kindly sir. Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?

After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.

So, essentially you're saying make sure you have a table full of "yes men" who will kowtow to your every whim and you'll be the best DM in the world. True enough I suppose. At least for that particular table.

I am amazed that you constructed that from "DMs, run the game you want to run!"

 

[Thasmodious]

Hrm..

Up until now, I thought we were supposed to ignore real snake behaviour in favour of the Defined Terms of the game. Now that the Defined Terms seem to not be what they were thought to be, we are back to thinking in terms of real snake behaviour.

That is a form of progress, I guess.

So, now I assume that you agree with me, that the benchmark is the expected outcome in the fiction, rather than, say, 4e's definition of Prone?

We were? I musta missed that memo. Unless, you have coalesced everyone arguing on the "other" side into one metamind acting in accord through several different posters. In other worlds, I didn't say anything about ignoring real snake behavior. The defined terms are what they were thought to be and I'm still on the same page I was before (mentally, a few pages further on in this thread )

I run a game where the players are largely irrelevant to the backdrop, but the focus of actual play is determined by the players through their choices.

Yeah, that's not so much for me.

And I guess, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say earlier, that I really don't understand what your "gamer utopia" comment was supposed to convey. At my table, we all contribute to the fun. We certainly don't say, "Sorry Bob, but since you're the DM, it's time for you to sacrifice your fun for ours!"

I'm not saying that. Perhaps an example - as DM, I may prefer a heavy roleplaying experience, voices, in-game chat only, whole nine yards. But only one of my players is comfortable with that, two others don't really roleplay, and another does, but in a detached kinda way.

Now, I could insist on it, force the players into awkward exchanges that don't really work for anyone and only isolate them further as players. Or I could engage their game interests and try to coax out more RP than they default to. That's what I mean by sacrifice. I, as DM, can't just insist on every aspect of the game being exactly as I'd prefer it. And shouldn't. The game is more rewarding for all if a balance is struck. I am absolutely not saying I must make the game unfun for myself.

 

[pemerton]

I think it's also important to give a new DM or an unfamiliar DM a fair shake--if you don't like a couple of decisions, stick around a little unless the type of game (and the people in it) aren't to your liking. Give constructive feedback. Say what you like and don't like and give it some time.

The players, of course, can walk away from draconian or unfair GMs. Start their own game. Find a new GM. They are not forced to play in the GM's game. However, the GM is indeed entitled to the power to say Yes, No, or Somewhat. That is really his only function. There are other things to consider, obviously, but rule-wise, that's his job. And, as far as I can tell, it's literally written in the book that the GM does indeed have this level of power over the game.

To the extent that there are differences here, I think I tend to lean RedTonic's way.

The frequent suggestion on this thread (not just from JamesonCourage but also Ariosto, I think RC, and maybe others I'm forgetting) that a player has the right to walk from a GM's game is true but not really helpful. We're here talking about what makes for better or worse GMing, across a range of editions of D&D (and some other games) and a range of playstyles. Given that purpose, I think there is a lot more to be said about how to GM well than simply "Exercise whatever power you want to subject to the knowledge that if your players really hate it, they'll quit your game". After all, no creative writing course gives instructions saying "Write whatever you want, subject to the knowledge that you'll only make money from it if you find a publisher who thinks the public and/or critics will like it." Part of the point of a creative writing course is to learn how to write stuff that will withstand critical scrutiny. Similarly, part of the point of this discussion is presumably to share a range of ideas about how a GM can make the play experience a better one (with "better" being relative to a range of rulesets, playstyles etc).

For some rulesets, it's just not true that the GM has the level of power over the game of being entitled to say "yes" or "no" to a player's call in respect of any of his/her PC's action. Now for some potential players, that might be a reason to avoid those rulesets, or to add such a rule into the way they play the game. But it's also interesting to think about why a ruleset might be written which doesn't include such a rule, what sort of play experience it might be intended to promote, how that play experience might interact with other preferences and concerns at the table, etc.

For example, if a 4e GM purports to veto the Knocked-down Snake, and a player queries that, I don't think it's very helpful to just start talking about "pushy" or "whiny" players who don't understand the GM's role. What sort of play experience is the GM trying to promote. If it's about the coherence of the GM's fiction, what is the GM's understanding of the players' contribution to that fiction? Does the GM object to knocking a snake down per se, or to the fact that the PC can do it willy nilly when in the real world it would be very hard, or what? If the GM won't allow a player takeback, is that because of the effect of takebacks on immersion, or because the GM thinks that players should be bound by some sort of equivalent to chess's "touch, move" rule, or what?

Whether or not it would be productive to raise this sort of issue actually at the gaming table in question is one thing. But I can't see how it is remotely out of order to raise them on a discussion board. And once these sorts of questions are put into play, I can't see that the range of satisfactory, considered responses is exhausted by "Of course a GM has that sort of power, but equally players are free to quit the game". The actual history of RPG design and play shows that other things are possible!

EDITED TO ADD:

One of the premises of a creative writing course is that even if you know what you like when you see it, it can be non-trivial to proudce that stuff yourself. Presumably the same is true for GMing. So while I agree that people should play what they like, I nevertheless think that critical reflection can help work out what it is that they're doing that is contributing to them getting what they like, and what it is that they're doing that is impeding them getting what they like. I will freely admit that my game has improved by becoming more self-conscious about my conception of the function of the rules, the GM, the way these can relate, the range of purposes they can serve, etc. Am I really an outlier? Is everyone else already running a game that is (by their own lights) the very best that it can be?